RAM KUMAR DUBEY Vs. THE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the U. P. Civil Police and in due course was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police. After undergoing the required training the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector in the year 1964. In the year 1974 the petitioner was posted at Lucknow. As a consequence of allegations of corruption against the petitioner, Departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were initiated against him in regard to misuse of official jeep in the year 1971-72. The allegations were enquired into by one Shri A. B. Shukla. He on 3-6-1975 completely exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The Inspector General of Police opposite party No. 1 in exercise of his powers under paragraph 511 of the U. P. Police Regulations passed an order dated 24-4-1976 whereby he quashed the findings of acquittal recorded by Shri A- B. Shukla and directed the re-trial of the petitioner from the stage of findings keeping the earlier proceedings intact and requiring the new Inquiry Officer to record his finding against. A copy of the order passed by opposite party No. 1 is Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the order Annexure 1 was passed after the expiry of six months from the date of the receipt of the record by opposite party No. 1 and that opposite party No. 1 in exercise of his revisional powers could not set aside the order of acquittal unless he had recorded in writing special reasons for exercising the said powers after the expiry of six months. The petitioner further complains that opposite party No. 1 while upsetting the finding of acquittal did not afford any opportunity to him even though the order passed by him adversely affected the petitioner and that the order passed by opposite party No. 1 seltting aside the order of acquittal was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further states that he was informed about the order passed by opposite party No. 1 when opposite party No. 2 informed him that in pursuance of order annexure 1 he had been appointed Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges again. Opposite party No. 2 proceeded with the inquiry and by an order dated 22.6.1976 issued a nqtice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be reduced to the lowest stage in the time scale of Sub-Inspector for a period of one year.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order Annexure 2, the petitioner preferred a claim under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. On behalf of the petitioner one of the contentions raised before the Tribunal was that the order passed by opposite party No. 1, Annexure 1, was in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was afforded to him to show cause why the order of acquittal passed in his favour earlier be not set aside. The petitioner's contention before the Tribunal was that the order setting aside the acquittal adversely affected the rights of the petitioner. In all fairness he was entitled to reasonable opportunity to show cause why the order of acquittal be not set aside. The Services Tribunal by order dated 14-6-1977 dismissed the petitioner's claim and the Inquiry Officer was directed to proceed with the case expeditiously. The order of the Tribunal is Annexure 3. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the orders passed by opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3 in this writ petition. He has prayed that the said orders be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a writ of mandamus be issued to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 not to proceed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the U. P. Police Act.